Seven experienced professionals analyze: A new perspective on the four-year cycle. What stage is the

Disclaimer: Content does not constitute investment advice. Trading involves risks—please invest with caution!

七位加密货币资深人士就比特币四年一次的减半周期是否仍然有效展开辩论。ETF和机构投资者重塑市场格局，预示着缓慢牛市将取代繁荣-萧条周期。

要点总结

1、由于机构ETF提前吸收了供应冲击，比特币传统的由减半驱动的四年周期正在减弱，价格上涨的幅度会分散到更长的时期，而不是产生抛物线式的飙升。

2、随着比特币全球市值达到万亿美元规模，市场驱动因素从减半机制转向宏观流动性和机构配置，边际收益递减。

3、由于代币供应过剩，传统的山寨币行情不太可能重现;资深专家建议持有BTC和ETH进行防御性布局，同时清算大部分山寨币持有量。

在比特币诞生后的十八年里，“四年周期”理论几乎成为加密货币市场信仰的基石。比特币减半、供应收缩、价格上涨以及山寨币的兴衰——这一理论不仅解释了历史上多次牛熊市周期，而且深刻影响着投资者的仓位管理、项目融资节奏，甚至整个行业对“时间”的理解。

However, after the halving in April 2024, the price of Bitcoin rose from $60,000 to a historical high of $126,000. This increase was significantly lower compared to previous halvings. Other cryptocurrencies performed even worse, and market dynamics were more sensitive to various policy factors. Especially after the large-scale influx of spot ETFs, institutional funds, and traditional financial instruments into the market, one question emerged repeatedly: Does the four-year cycle still apply in the cryptocurrency market? To address this issue, we have invited seven experienced professionals in the cryptocurrency industry to engage in discussions on topics beyond optimism and caution, as well as predictions for both bull and bear markets. They are:

● Jason | Founder of NDV Fund: He previously served as the head of investment at the family office of Alibaba’s founder, Jack Ma. His investment style combines the rigor of the primary market with the liquidity of the secondary market. His first fund achieved an absolute return of approximately 275% within 23 months, and he has now exited all of his investments in that fund. As an open-ended fund, this fund ensured that all investors made profits.

● Ye Su | Founding Partner of ArkStream Capital: Over the past eight years, he has invested in more than 100 companies and projects, including Aave, Filecoin, and Ethena. He is an institutional investor who follows trends.

● Jack Yi | Founder of Liquid Capital: He focuses on real capital allocation and trading strategies, emphasizing the strategic value of mainstream assets, stablecoins, and exchange ecosystems at different stages of the cycle.

● James | Founder of DFG: Currently manages assets worth over $1 billion. He was one of the early investors in companies such as LedgerX, Ledger, Coinlist, and Circle. He also served as a early investor and supporter of various protocols including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and Uniswap.

● Joanna Liang | Co-founder of Jsquare Fund: A young entrepreneur and investor born in the 1990s, she currently manages assets worth over $200 million. She also operates a private limited partnership fund with a capital of $50 million. She has invested in several notable projects, including Pudgy Penguins, Circle, Amber Group, and Render Network.

● Bruce | Founder of MSX: With his experience in the mining industry, he evaluates the long-term profitability and risk levels of the cryptocurrency market based on mining costs, cyclical returns, and industry maturity.

● CryptoPainter | Cryptocurrency Data Analyst: Using on-chain data and technical indicators, along with historical patterns, this analyst makes quantitative judgments about market stages and trend turning points.

What exactly is this “four-year cycle”?

Before discussing whether this cycle has “failed,” we need to clarify one premise first:

What exactly does “the four-year cycle” refer to?

According to the general consensus among the participants interviewed, the traditional four-year cycle is primarily influenced by the halving of Bitcoin’s block rewards. This halving occurs approximately every four years. Halving means a decrease in new supply, changes in miners’ behavior, and provides long-term support for prices. This is the core of the “four-year cycle” theory, and it also has a strong mathematical basis.

However, some experts consider cryptocurrency cycles within a broader financial framework. Jason, the founder of NDV, believes that the four-year cycle is actually driven by both political and liquidity factors, rather than just the halving mechanism. The so-called four-year cycle coincides closely with the US presidential election cycle and the pace at which central banks around the world release liquidity. Previously, people focused only on halvings, considering them as the sole factor, as the amount of new Bitcoin added during each cycle was extremely large. But now, with the approval of spot ETFs, Bitcoin has become part of the macro-asset class. The expansion of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet and the growth of global M2 money supply are the real determinants of this cycle. Therefore, in his view, the four-year cycle is essentially a cycle of legal tender liquidity. Considering only the supply-side from a mathematical perspective, this Bitcoin cycle (2024-2028) will only add 600,000 units of Bitcoin, which is far too little compared to the current total of about 19 million units. The additional selling pressure of less than $60 billion can easily be absorbed by Wall Street.

Is this a manifestation of a regular pattern, or is it simply a self-fulfilling prophecy?

When a concept is repeatedly verified and widely accepted, it often transforms from a “rule” into a “consensus,” and further develops into a narrative. This narrative, in turn, affects market behavior. Therefore, an inevitable question arises: Is the four-year cycle an objective economic law, or is it merely a market narrative that is widely accepted and continuously implemented by the public?

Regarding the causes of the four-year cycle, our respondents generally believe that it is the result of both objective mechanisms and market narratives working together. However, different dominant forces may prevail at different stages.

As CryptoPainter pointed out, the four-year cycle was indeed significant during the early days when miners produced large amounts of gold. However, the marginal effects of this supply-demand cycle have diminished significantly. Theoretically, with each halving, the impact of the supply-demand changes caused by the halving itself also decreases. Therefore, the percentage increase in each bull market also shows a logarithmic decline. It can be predicted that the next halving cycle will have less impact on prices. Jason also noted that as the market size expands, the impact of simple supply-side changes is diminishing. The current cycle is more based on the self-fulfilling prophecy of liquidity.

Jsquare Fund创始合伙人梁乔安娜从市场行为学的角度补充道，四年周期在很大程度上是自我实现的。随着机构和散户投资者参与结构的改变，宏观经济政策、监管环境、流动性状况以及减半事件等因素的相对重要性也会在每个周期中重新排序。在这种动态博弈中，四年周期不再是“铁律”，而仅仅是众多影响因素之一。在她看来，正因为基本面不断变化，市场打破四年周期模式甚至进入“超级周期”并非不可能。

总体而言，与会嘉宾一致认为，虽然四年周期在早期阶段确实拥有稳固的供需基础，但随着矿工在市场中的影响力下降，比特币逐渐转向资产配置，该周期正从由强势机制驱动转变为由多种因素(如市场预期、行为和宏观经济因素)共同作用的结果。当前的周期可能已经逐渐从“硬性约束”转向“软性预期”。

本轮涨幅已显著放缓。这是周期中的自然下跌，还是被ETF和机构基金的强劲表现“掩盖”了?

关于这个问题，几乎所有嘉宾都给出了相对一致的判断：这是边际收益递减的自然结果，而非周期突然失效。任何成长型市场都会经历收益递减的过程。随着比特币市值的持续增长，每一次新的“倍数”都需要指数级增长的资金流入，因此收益下降本身就是一种自然规律。

From this perspective, the fact that “the growth rate is not as high as before” actually reflects a result that aligns with long-term logic.

But the deeper changes stem from the structure of the market itself.

Joanna Liang believes that the biggest difference between this cycle and previous cycles lies in the early entry of spot ETFs and institutional funds. In the last cycle, Bitcoin’s historical highs were driven by a small amount of liquidity from retail investors. In this cycle, however, ETF funds of over $50 billion flowed in around the time of the halving, absorbing any potential supply shocks before they could have a significant impact. This means that price increases lasted longer, rather than being concentrated in a parabolic surge after the halving, as was the case in previous cycles.

Jack Yi further added from the perspectives of market value and volatility. As Bitcoin’s market value reaches trillions of dollars, its lower volatility is inevitable as it becomes more mainstream and institutionalized. In the early stages, when market value is low, inflows can lead to exponential growth. But given the current market value, even doubling the market value would require an enormous amount of new capital.

James, the founder of DFG, believes that the halving remains a “variable that still exists, but is becoming less important.” In his view, future halvings will be more like secondary catalysts. What truly determines trends are the flow of institutional funds, the realization of actual demands such as risk-weighted assets, and the overall macro-liquidity environment.

However, Bruce, the founder of MSX, does not fully agree with this view. He believes that halving operations increase the production costs of Bitcoin, and these costs will ultimately become a long-term factor that affects the price of Bitcoin. Even as the industry becomes more mature and overall profits decrease, halving operations will still have a positive impact on prices by increasing costs, but this effect won’t manifest as significant price fluctuations.

In summary, participants do not believe that the “reduction in price increases” is caused by a single factor. A more reasonable explanation is that the marginal effects of halving are diminishing, while ETFs and institutional funds are changing the way prices are determined. This doesn’t mean that halving operations are failing; rather, the market no longer focuses on a single explosive growth point related to halving events.

What stage are we currently in?

If previous discussions had focused more on whether the cyclical patterns still hold, then this question would be even more relevant: From the current perspective, are we in a bull market, a bear market, or some transitional phase that hasn’t been accurately defined yet?

It’s at this point that the differences among respondents are most pronounced.

MSX’s founder, Bruce, is quite pessimistic. He believes that we are currently at the beginning of a typical bear market. Although most market participants do not generally agree that a bull market has ended. His judgment is based on the basic cost-reward structure. In the previous cycle, the cost of mining Bitcoin was around $20,000, with prices reaching a peak of $69,000. Miners benefited from a profit margin of nearly 70%. However, in this cycle, the cost of mining after the halving has risen to around $70,000. Even if prices reach a historical high of $126,000, the profit margin will still be just over 40%. Bruce believes that in an industry that has existed for nearly 20 years, it is normal for returns to decline with each cycle. Unlike during the 2020-2021 period, this cycle saw a significant influx of new capital into artificial intelligence-related assets, rather than the cryptocurrency market. At least in the North American market, the most active and risk-averse funds continue to focus on the artificial intelligence sector within the U.S. stock market.

CryptoPainter's assessment clearly leans towards a technical and data-driven approach. He believes that the current market has not yet entered a true cyclical bear market; instead, it is already in a technical bear market. The key indicator of this situation is the breakdown of the 50-week moving average (MA50). Technical bear markets have occurred after each of the previous bull markets, but this does not necessarily mean that the bull market cycle has ended immediately. True cyclical bear markets usually require a simultaneous decline in macroeconomic conditions to be confirmed. Therefore, he describes this phase as an “observation period”: the technical structure is weakening, but there is still no definitive conclusion regarding macroeconomic conditions. He specifically pointed out that the total supply of stablecoins continues to increase. A bear market will only be confirmed when the supply of stablecoins stops growing for more than two months.

In contrast, many experts still believe that this cycle has already ended. The market is currently in the middle or late stage of a bull market adjustment period, and there is a high likelihood that the market will enter a phase of gradual upward movement or a slow bull market. Both Jason and Ye Su’s judgments are based on global macro-level liquidity trends. They believe that the United States has little choice left; it can only delay the release of debt pressures through monetary easing measures. The cycle of interest rate cuts has just begun, and the “valve” of liquidity has not yet been closed. Therefore, as global M2 continues to expand, crypto assets, being the most liquidity-sensitive assets, will continue to rise. Additionally, they point out that the real signs of a bear market would be central banks starting to tighten liquidity significantly, or a severe recession in the real economy leading to liquidity contraction. Currently, none of these indicators show any abnormalities; instead, they indicate that liquidity is about to be released. From a market leverage perspective, if open positions are too large relative to market value, this is usually a sign of short-term adjustments, not a bear market signal.

Jack Yi also believes that Wall Street and institutions are rethinking the financial system using blockchain technology, making asset structures more stable and reducing the risk of significant fluctuations, unlike in the early stages of a retail-dominated market. Moreover, with the change of the Federal Reserve chairman, the arrival of a cycle of interest rate cuts, and the most favorable crypto policy in history, current volatility will be seen as part of a broader trend. In the long term, the market will remain in a bull market.

Divisions of opinion may indeed be the most genuine characteristic of this stage. The opinions of the respondents constitute a small but not perfect sample: some believe that a bear market has already arrived, while others are waiting for data to provide a final answer. However, many people likely think that the four-year cycle theory is no longer valid.

More importantly, it is no longer the only framework for understanding the market, or even the primary framework at all. The importance of halving events, timing, and market sentiment is being re-evaluated, while macro liquidity, market structure, and asset characteristics are becoming more crucial variables.

The core driving force behind sustained bull markets shifts from emotionally driven bull markets to structural-based bull markets.

If the “four-year cycle” is weakening, and the cryptocurrency market in the future no longer exhibits clear bull-bear cycles, but instead enters a state of long-term volatility with significant bear market tendencies, then where does the core driving force behind this structure come from?

Jason believes that the rise of Bitcoin is driven by a systematic decline in the credibility of traditional currencies, along with the normalization of institutional investments. As Bitcoin becomes increasingly regarded as a “digital gold,” and enters the balance sheets of sovereign nations, pension funds, and hedge funds, its upward trend will no longer depend on single cyclical events. Instead, it will be more akin to gold—a long-term asset that can help protect against the depreciation of traditional currencies. At that point, its price will continue to rise in a spiral manner. At the same time, he emphasizes the importance of stablecoins. In his opinion, compared to Bitcoin, stablecoins have a larger potential user base, and their penetration into the real economy is also greater. From payments and cross-border capital flows, stablecoins are becoming the “interface layer” of the next generation of financial infrastructure. This means that the future growth of the cryptocurrency market will no longer rely solely on speculative demand, but will gradually integrate into real financial and commercial activities.

Joanna Liang’s analysis also supports this view. She believes that the key factor for a slow but steady bull market in the future lies in the continued involvement of institutional investors, whether through spot ETFs or tokenization via RWA. As institutional investors continue to invest in stablecoins, the market will exhibit a “compound interest” pattern—volatility will decrease, but the trend will not reverse.

CryptoPainter's perspective is more straightforward. He pointed out that BTCUSD trades are located on the right side, or in terms of USD. Therefore, as long as global liquidity remains loose over the long term and the US dollar remains weak, asset prices will not experience a severe bear market. Instead, they will slowly move upward during continuous technical bear markets. The traditional bull-bear pattern will also shift towards a pattern similar to gold: “long-term fluctuation – upward trend – long-term fluctuation.”

Of course, not everyone agrees with the concept of a “slow bull market.”

Bruce’s view seems pessimistic. He believes that structural problems in the global economy still exist: deteriorating employment markets, young people being content with the status quo, highly concentrated wealth, and ongoing geopolitical risks. Under these circumstances, the likelihood of a severe economic crisis in 2026-2027 is not low. If systemic macroeconomic risks do occur, crypto assets may not be able to survive.

To some extent, a slow bull market isn’t a consensus view; it’s a conditional judgment based on the persistence of liquidity.

Does the traditional “copycat season” still exist?

The “copycat season” has become an essential part of the four-year cycle. However, the absence of this season has become one of the most discussed phenomena this cycle.

本轮山寨币表现不佳的原因有以下几点。Joanna指出，首先，比特币日益增长的主导地位在风险资产中营造了一种“避险”氛围，使得机构资金更倾向于选择蓝筹资产。其次，监管框架的日趋成熟，使得那些具有明确用途和合规性的山寨币更有利于长期推广。第三，本轮山寨币缺乏像上一轮DeFi和NFT那样具有杀手级应用和清晰发展脉络的案例。

与会嘉宾的另一个共识是，新的山寨币季可能会出现，但它将更具选择性，只关注少数具有实际应用场景和能够产生收入的代币。

CryptoPainter对此问题进行了更深入的阐述。他认为，传统的山寨币热潮不太可能重现。“传统”一词意味着山寨币的总数处于合理范围内，但目前山寨币的总数已达到前所未有的新高，并且还在不断攀升。即使宏观流动性充裕，有限的供应量也会阻止价格全面上涨。因此，即使山寨币热潮真的出现，也将是极其罕见且局限于特定领域，并由特定行业的需求驱动。此时关注个别山寨币毫无意义;重点应该放在其背后的行业和板块上。

叶苏以美国股市为例：山寨币的未来表现将更像美国股市的M7指数——蓝筹股山寨币长期表现将优于市场，而小市值山寨币偶尔会有突破，但可持续性极弱。

Ultimately, the structure of the market has changed. In the past, the economy was driven by individual investors; now, it is driven by institutional investors and financial statements.